examples in the Paradigm. The variety of punctuation, with suff.

, may also be there seen.

"The Inf. of a verb Fut. Pattahh usually takes Hhireq under the first radical, before suffixes; as Dp in the Par.; but sometimes Verbs Pe Gutt. sometimes take a

Pattahh, as
Seghol in the first syllable; as

by, &c.

an, Ps. cii. 14."

The Inf. with suffix seems to undergo the same change of

.Num. xxviii) בְּחָדְשׁוֹ with sufix ; as פועל

vowels as nouns
14), 7 (Isa. xxi. 10),

T

(Ps. xv. 1),

(Job. xiv. 8), DN (Job. xxxvi. 15), and many others; so the Inf. 1 (2 King xxv. 27), DV (Jer. ix. 12.); the only difference between them exists in the quality of the vowel in the first radical, viz. the short Qamets in suffix nouns of is instead of its long vowel Hholem, and consequently is a real short-vowel; wherefore in

רוֹחַב אוֹרֶך as בגדכפת nouns whose third radicals are one of

TN

, such letters receive in suffixes a Daghesh-lene, as 1, (Exod. xxviii. 16), (Ps. xviii. 29), but the short Qamets in the first radical in suffix Inf. is instead of a Sheva, of big and consequently is a medial-vowel, therefore the third

עָזְבֵךְ מָלְכוֹ is Raple, as בגד כפת radical, when it is one of

suff. 2d pers. exists still

with suff. is the first

T

Day, and many others. In Inf. with
another difference, viz. in nouns
radical with short Qametsa real short-vowel, and consequent-
ly is the second radical with immoveable Sheva, and the third
with a moveable one, as (Job. xxxix. 12), DƆN (Isa. Iv.
3), (Ps. li. 13.); but in Inf. the second radical ought to
be with Sheva-on account of the shifted tone; but as the
Qamets of the first radical is a medial-vowel, instead of the Sheva
of y-and it cannot be followed by two Shevas, therefore
they change places, viz. the Qamets of the first radical is
shifted to the second radical, and again the Sheva of the second
radical to the first one, as (Gen. ii. 17), DɔɔN (Gen. iii.

4),

(Obad. i. 11), TN (Deut. xxviii. 20.). ON
(Deut. vi. 7), D (Deut. xxvii. 4)

(Deut. xvi. 13),

(Josh. vi. 5), and many others are Nomen actio

nis-as the English gerunds, derived from DN

the

We doubt, therefore, very modestly, on the correctness of

instances,,, found in the Par.XXII. in Inf. suff. of the Grammar before us; because such forms belong exclusively to suff. nouns of y, as above remarked.

"312. (7) Participles follow the manner of the nouns to whose declension they belong, in receiving suffixes."

We observe the following rules for the participles with suffix. viz.

(.3 .Sam. xxi 1) שְׁלֵחֵךְ

First: When the third radical is one of , then the second radical receives a Tseri, as Second: When the third radical is an Aleph, then the second radical receives a Pattahh, as 7 (Isa. xliii. 1.)

Third: When the second radical is a Guttural, then it always receives a Pattahh, as (Isaiah xlviii. 17), DN (Isa. xliii. 14), 7 (2 Chron. xx. 7), and in all such

verbs.

Fourth: At a pause-accent, the third radical receives a

Seghol, and the second, a Sheva, as

(Ps. cxxi. 5.)

Fifth: Part. fem. is either

(Isa. xliv. 24), 2

por pi; the suff. is

always annexed to the Segholate form, as from is formed

1. 12); we find in all these instances the Tav with Daghesh, which shows that it is formed from ♫ and not of i, for any silent He when changed into Tav, forms it Raphe—without Daghesh.

For the better illustration and definition of the formations and conjugations of the regular and irregular verbs, we exhibit here a list of such verbs which appear in the Bible, in different and various shapes; by exchanging the places of

their radicals with each other, notwithstanding they belong to one and the same root, and are of the same meaning.

I.-Verbs which change the places of their first and second radicals:

II.-One Verb changes the place of its first and third (Job. xv. 16), and (Ezech. xxiv. 11.)

radical-1,

III.-Verbs which change the second and third radical.

1, DON (Isa. xxix. 20) and ON (Isa. xvi. 10)

2,

3,

4,

בהל

(Ps. xxx. 8)

(1 King, iii. 25)

(2 Sam. xxii. 46)

(Isa. xvii. 14)

(Ps. xxxi. 23)

1 (Ps. xviii. 46)

6,

(Ps. xxxiv. 6)

(10 .Job. xiv) חלש,5 (18 .Deut. xxv) חשל

(42 .Ps. cxix) חרף

IV.-One Verb changes the places of all the three radicals, viz. (Ezech. v. 7), and D7) (Isa. v. 30.)

We will conclude our remarks with a few critical observations on some corrupted readings and versions of the Bible.

In the recent translations, given, Gen. xxii. 13, reads"and Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him, a ram," &c. Neither in the Greek version of the Septuagint, nor in that of the Samaritan, Chaldean, Syriac, or Arabic, is found that expression, "behind him." What induced the recent translators to add that expression, is the Hebrew word, which signifies behind or after; but there is no sense in that phrase; for according to this reading, the translation ought to be "and behold a ram behind caught," &c. Here is plainly wanting the suffixed pronoun † him, as (Gen. xix. 26), and in many other instances; besides, the place of that word ought to be after behold, not after ram. The truth is, that the points being a modern invention, the original manuscript rendered that word by N (one), and the meaning is plain and strictly of an Oriental construction, " - - - and behold one," a ram caught," &c., the copyist mistook the (Daleth) for(Resh), which two letters are very easily confoundedand so they were compelled to manufacture quite another word after the introduction of the points. It is astonishing that none of our famous critics have suggested what is plainly seen in the Samaritan-Hebrew text, Samaritan, Greek, Chaldean, and Arabic versions. The Persian version, it is true, agrees in the same expression with our recent ones, but it must have been done by one who lived after the introduction of the points; to ascertain which, this is no proper place.

or

(Deut. xxxii. 17), They sacrificed unto devils not to "God," the Hebrew text is D', almost all the versions render that word by demons; the Septuagint renders it by damovious, which undoubtedly is derived from daas to distribute, connected with the Hebrew breast. Macrobius (Saturnal, lib. i. c. 20) says, "Hinc est quod continuatis uberibus corpus Deæ (Isidis scil.) densetur, quia Terræ vel rerum Naturæ alta nutritur universitas. And Plutar. (de Is. & Osir. p. 361) says, "that Isis and Osiris were changed from good dæmons into gods." That dæmons are not devils, is clear from Celsus (apud. Origen con. Cels. lib. viii. p. 393.) "If idols are dæ

mons, then undoubtedly they are gods, in whom we are to confide, to whom to sacrifice and pray," and Apuleius (de deo Socratis, p. 675.)

"Cuncta coelestium voluntate, numine et authoritate, sed dæmonum obsequio et opera et ministerio fieri arbitrandum est."

་

Also, the expression, " not to God"-is not to be found in the Hebrew text, where the Prepos. to is wanting. Besides, we cannot find a single authority in the original text, for the translation devils, nay, not even for dæmons, or any kind of spirits. True, the same expression is found in Psal. cvi. 26, but there it is a mere quotation from Deuteronomy, as is clear from the contents of the whole Psalm. We find that Æneas brought from Troy into Italy his households gods, who probably were the Samothracian deities, styled "Cabiri," (Hebrew powerful); so, we also find that God was called "W (Almighty), (Num. xxiv. 4), Ruth i. 21), (Job. vi. 4), the plural of which, is necessarily ; the meaning of the phrase is now plain, "they sacrificed to gods which are no deity; to gods unknown to them," &c. Many are in doubt, with regard to the correct pronunciation of the (Shin), whether the sound be sh when the point is found upon the right head (2), or upon the left (); the authority for its correct pronunciation may be taken from Jud. xii. 6, where the word Shibolet is spelled with, and the word Sibolet with D, consequently the sound of with a point upon the right head, must be sh, for otherwise there would have been no difference in the pronunciation of the two mentioned words.